Is a benefit in kind for a residence unreasonable? A step in the right direction.

Much has been written in recent years about calculating the benefit in kind for private use of a residence provided by a company. Especially since the benefit in kind for private use of a residence was almost doubled in 2012.

1. Flat-rate determination of the benefit in kind

Since 2012, in accordance with Article 18(2)(2) of the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code (KB/WIB), the benefit has been calculated at a flat rate using the following formula:

                Index-adjusted cadastral income x 100/60 x 1.25 or 3.8. 

The coefficient of 1.25 may only be applied in the case of non-index-adjusted cadastral incomes of €745 or less; the coefficient of 3.8 must be applied in all other cases.

Before 2012 the coefficient for cadastral incomes of more than €745 was only 2, instead of 3.8.

2. Flat-rate benefit vs market rent

When this formula was introduced, the question arose of whether the obligation to calculate the benefit according to a flat rate also applied in circumstances where a market rent was paid by the manager/employee for the private use. The Minister of Finance confirmed that it did, and stated that people in such a situation would still be taxed on the difference between the flat-rate benefit and the market rent, if the flat rate was higher than the rent.

This position has come under heavy criticism in the legal literature. If the rent is set in accordance with prevailing prices in the property market, there can be no question of a benefit being acquired by the manager/employee. Moreover, Article 18 of the KB/WIB refers to the aforementioned calculation only in the case of the “provision of real property or parts of real property free of charge.” If rent is paid, and certainly if it’s market rent, we can only endorse this view, and confirm that in fact there can be no question of a benefit being acquired.

3. Is a flat-rate benefit for a residence provided by a company unconstitutional?

Another point of discussion about the benefit in kind relates to the difference between calculating the benefit for a residence provided by a company and one provided by a natural or self-employed person. The benefit of the private use of a residence provided by a natural person certainly does not consist of increasing the amount by a coefficient of 1.25 or 3.8.

This discussion was recently “resolved” by the Ghent Court of Appeal. Under the Constitution, all taxpayers who are in the same situation should be treated in the same manner, and should thus also be taxed in the same manner. Different treatment is acceptable only where it is objectively and reasonably justifiable in light of the purpose of the tax, and without going beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose. The Court of Appeal held that nowhere in the legislative texts, royal decrees or preparatory documents could be found an objective and reasonable justification for the different treatment. According to the Court, the tax authorities had also not succeeded in justifying the unequal treatment. As a result, the Court of Appeal decided that such a difference in taxation is unconstitutional.

4. Conclusion

What the impact of this decision will be in practice is not yet clear. In the first instance, we’re waiting for a reaction from the legislature before the decision has any chance of being successfully applied in practice. We think it more than likely that the tax authorities will ignore the decision for now and revert to the KB/WIB, meaning that the formula for calculating the benefit in kind, although disputed, will continue to be applied. The government may appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation or take legislative action to change the way the benefit is calculated. There is nothing to prevent a taxpayer from using a notice of objection to attempt to challenge the calculation of an excessively high benefit in kind, but it should be borne in mind that the debate will most likely end up being conducted in court.

We hope the government will take the necessary steps to bring the flat-rate calculation of the benefit in kind for private use of a residence back down to earth.

We’ll keep monitoring the situation and let you know when there are further developments.

Is there a notification requirement for your organisation?
Well begun is half done: Prepare your organisation for the go-live of the UBO register.
The register of ultimate beneficiaries (the "UBO register") will go live on 31 October 2018. In one of our previous newsletters we presented an overview of the general framework of the UBO register. The Royal Decree of 30 July 2018, published in the Belgian Official Journal of 14 September 2018, explains this register in detail. We’ve reviewed what your organisation needs to take into account.&n
One of the action points of the ATAD Directive
Impact of the implementation of the Belgian CFC legislation: the de facto tightening of transfer pricing rules?
From 1 January 2019 (fiscal year 2020), the newly introduced CFC rule will come into effect in Belgium, due to the implementation of the ATAD directive1. This new legislation must be interpreted within the broader framework of the Summer Agreement and the reforms within Belgian corporate taxation, which, like the CFC legislation, have resulted in part from the heavily discussed implementation of t
Brexit, e-commerce & VAT action plan are discussed
Pending changes in the area of international VAT
In the previous edition we discussed the expected changes in terms of VAT at a national level. In this article we will briefly consider the VAT changes that are expected internationally.                Brexit  In principle, on 30 March 2019, the ‘Brexit’ will finally be a reality. The United Kingdom will no lon
Limited number of legal entity types
Help, soon my legal entity type will no longer exist!
The WVV ("CAC") is on its way On 4 June 2018, the "draft legislation introducing the Companies and Associations Code" was filed in the Chamber, marking one of the most far-reaching corporate law reforms since the introduction of the coordinated laws on commercial companies on 30 November 1935. This extensive reform of corporate law corresponds with the introduction of the “Companies and Asso
A brief summary
What should be expected in relation to (national) VAT?
Despite the fact that many of us are still in summer (holiday) mode, this article is going to focus on the VAT changes that we could expect in the not-too-distant future. It will provide a brief summary. For a more in-depth examination, you can always contact our VAT team.  Vouchers (1 January 2019)  In June 2016, Europe set out the VAT process for vouchers (Directive (EU)2016/1065 o
The FAQ contains no fewer than thirty-one questions
FAQ published regarding the Innovation Income Deduction (IID)
On 26 July 2018, the FPS Finance used Fisconet - you can registrate for free to consult the list of FAQ - to publish the long-awaited list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding the Innovation Income Deduction. Since the law of 9 February 2017, introducing the Innovation Income Deduction, there now follows the first additional comments concerning the legal provisions of Art. 20
Depends on the nature and frequency of the violation
Fine levels set for non-compliance with transfer pricing documentation obligation
From tax year 2017 and, more specifically, the implementation of the mandatory transfer pricing documentation obligation, there was an immediate indication that, from a second violation of non-compliance with the transfer pricing obligations, a fine of between 1,250 EUR and 25,000 EUR (Article 445, §3 Income Tax Code 1992) could be imposed. The scales of the administrative fines and their appl
What are the consequences?
Vlabel overruled by the Council of State in the case of split acquisition and registration of bare ownership and usufruct
After years of dispute between taxpayers and the Flemish Tax Office (Vlabel), the Council of State has quashed Vlabel's position on split acquisition and split registration. Here below we explain where the problem lies and what the consequences of the decision of the Council of State are in practice. The problematic situations Two kinds of situations were targeted by the position of Vlabel. Th
Property planning finds itself in turbulent waters
Valuation of a usufruct: in complete (r)evolution?
Much has been said and written in the past few years about the valuation of a usufruct and where the fiscal shoe pinches. An overview of valuation problems, current trends and a look at future property planning is provided below. Valuation of a usufruct Valuation of a usufruct: a changing world Usufruct is one of the oldest property rights known and was already applied in Roman times. Usufr
This difference in treatment needs to be corrected
Benefit in kind on immovable property: tax authority abides by the court ruling (for now)
The Federal Public Service Finance published Circular 2018/C/57 on 15 May 2018 on the flat-rate valuation of the benefit in kind for providing an immovable property or a part of an immovable property free of charge to employees or managers. The flat-rate estimate of these benefits is laid down by the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 (RD/BITC 92). The Courts of Appeal of Ghent and

Subscribe to our newsletter